What don't you get?? They're afraid that a package labeled "genetically modified food" will frighten people to not buy the product. Since it's not been shown to be a health hazard, there's a legitimate argument whether they should be required to have it on the label. All animal and plant based food in a sense is genetically altered by selective breeding; that need not be on the label. Lots of things done to food (steamed, air dried, dessicated, boiled, sedimented) need not be on the label because they're not shown to be harmful and a vital consumer interest; some feel the same way about genetic alterations in the absence of any good evidence.

Well, it will affect all the manufacturers equally then, and the free market will set in. Consumers who want to avoid the foods will avoid them, and those who think the GMO ones are cheaper or not harmful, will still buy them. Eventually, someone may come up with a non-GMO food for a cheaper price, maybe not.

Well, it will affect all the manufacturers equally then, and the free market will set in. Consumers who want to avoid the foods will avoid them, and those who think the GMO ones are cheaper or not harmful, will still buy them. Eventually, someone may come up with a non-GMO food for a cheaper price, maybe not.

Why not let the market decide after providing all the information?

Click to expand...

The California law was bad because it excluded foods represented by a number of powerful lobbying groups/lobbyists, including dairy, alcohol and restaurant foods.

I agree with Olli that it would contribute to mass hysteria, in a sense, without cause. As Olli also mentioned, virtually all plants and animals have been "genetically modified" at this point in history and the only real concern is potential (and very hypothetical) increased allergenicity. Just buy organic foods and don't worry about it.

The California law was bad because it excluded foods represented by a number of powerful lobbying groups/lobbyists, including dairy, alcohol and restaurant foods.

I agree with Olli that it would contribute to mass hysteria, in a sense, without cause. As Olli also mentioned, virtually all plants and animals have been "genetically modified" at this point in history and the only real concern is potential (and very hypothetical) increased allergenicity. Just buy organic foods and don't worry about it.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between the gradual selection done by farmers and breeders in the past, and today's possibilities.

Well, it will affect all the manufacturers equally then, and the free market will set in. Consumers who want to avoid the foods will avoid them, and those who think the GMO ones are cheaper or not harmful, will still buy them. Eventually, someone may come up with a non-GMO food for a cheaper price, maybe not.

Why not let the market decide after providing all the information?

Click to expand...

As I understand it, those companies are not in the business of ensuring a free market or providing a level playing field and so on. They are in the business of making money. So why would they not lobby against something that could hurt their sales?

As I understand it, those companies are not in the business of ensuring a free market or providing a level playing field and so on. They are in the business of making money. So why would they not lobby against something that could hurt their sales?

Click to expand...

That is also true for cigarette companies. What is your point?

The issue is whether people should know or not. Whether it passes or not is not being discussed.

People claimed that if organic farming was used, millions will starve to death. That did not happen. Some farms became organic, others did not. It cost more, some people buy it, some people don't.

It's a great book that is easy to read and understand, and helps explain a lot of misconceptions that many people have about food.

I don't know much about GMOs, but humans have had a pretty bad track record in our attempts to alter food. There have been so many attempts which all seemed like a great idea at the time, but turned out to be horrible. Chances are good this attempt will also have some negative effects, although there will not be any definitive evidence for many years.

The bottom line is that our digestive systems evolved over many thousands of years based on what was available to eat. What most people eat today is radically different from what people ate only 50-100 years ago, but evolution does not work on such a short time scale and so people are becoming very unhealthy.

Well ollinger either a bit ignorant or feigning ignorance.
There are clear differences between cross breeding and genetic engineering.

Among the critics of gmo there is discussion about whether AT THE MOMENT CURRENT methods of genetic modification such as using gene gun and viral vector insertion insertion can cause unknown and undesired mutations in the target dna. Test animals from French, Russian and Italian studies developing health problems from a GM crop? Who's study's are telling the truth? Industrial agricultural trade wars with France and other countries who rigged the studies or American protectionist policies towards its biotech industry and agriculture industry mean avoid finding faults in american studies?

A gene Gene gun will shoot tiny gold or tungsten particles coated in the desired DNA into a petri dish or similar container holding the target cells. Its a shotgun approach and the vast majority of the DNA coated particles will not introduce the DNA into the target cells DNA. The cells that are introduced the foreign DNA through this method can end up with countless unexpected alterations in their own DNA as well as with alterations with the inserted DNA. The inserted DNA can be introduced anywhere in the genome, and can corrupt or damage genes if inserted in the DNA sequence of a gene. It is well know that this technique generally damage the target cells, but less discuss, but known is that it can damage (cause significant unintended alterations to) target cells DNA. Really gene insertion is in the darkages because of industry and to some extent acedemias unwillingness to be critical of itself. Studies done on certain GM crop found they indeed had unintended genetic changes. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2006/025376/abs/http://www.microbesadapt.com/zope12/microbes/content/e48/e53/e198/Forsbach-BirketalIJMM03.pdfhttp://www.saveourseeds.org/downloads/schubert_safety_reg_us_11_2004.pdf

This is a very industry unfriendly study avenue to pursue, and like with all industry cannot be called to regulate itself. Unfortunately the universities are increasingly funded by industry so large independent studies that could bring ire of industry (the hands that partially fund the universities) is frowned upon. Governments regulatory bodies are increasingly protective of national interests and often have former industrialists in key policy making positions changing them from their once more idealic standards to more industry friendly standards.

Ollinger a good guy, at the end of the day is a institutional man, which reminds me of years ago he scoffed at the notion of antidepressants having long term sideeffects long after discontinuation(even for those who slowly tapered off of them under doctors instructions) and possibly long term use worsening recovery over the long term, now has to give a little ground to these possibilities.

Ollinger don't close your eyes to the notion that perhaps just perhaps there is truth to something that doesn't have majority academia recognition.

Look, I also believe deep inside that current GMO stuff is quite OK, and undergone lots of testing. But I am worried what things are being suppressed and what may affect us in the future, so I want to at least know what has already been modified.

When artificial preservatives and flavoring agents were first added, people said they are harmless and the preservatives were needed to fight world hunger. Today many of them are known to be chemicals not good for the body.

Institutional man? Hmmm. I've mentioned more than once, and for years, on this forum Marcia Angell's book "The Truth About the Drug Companies." Her book utterly trashes the drug companies. Nothing very institutional about that. I posted in this thread that the evidence on GMO is just not there yet, not that it never could be. And the potential public health benefits of GMO are enormous.

Institutional man? Hmmm. I've mentioned more than once, and for years, on this forum Marcia Angell's book "The Truth About the Drug Companies." Her book utterly trashes the drug companies. Nothing very institutional about that. I posted in this thread that the evidence on GMO is just not there yet, not that it never could be. And the potential public health benefits of GMO are enormous.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree that the worries about GMO haven't yet been proven, but they can't be blithely dismissed. There are potential benefits, too, but a lot of them are economic.

There's a huge amount of hypocrisy on this issue among some. People will say that supplements should be banned until they are proven safe, but GMO should be allowed until it is proven unsafe. I guess I take a middle ground in that I think they should both be allowed but labeled.

I guess everyone here knows that both Grape Nuts and Cheerios have GMO wheat in them.

I'm not familiar with the book, but if you eat too much of pretty much anything, it can be bad for you.... The bottom line is that our digestive systems evolved over many thousands of years based on what was available to eat. What most people eat today is radically different from what people ate only 50-100 years ago, but evolution does not work on such a short time scale and so people are becoming very unhealthy.

Click to expand...

Thanks for recommendation. "Wheat Belly" doesn't just say 'don't eat too much wheat', it pretty much says today's wheat is poison that you should have little or none of because it will make you fat and unhealthy.

Ollinger a good guy, at the end of the day is a institutional man, which reminds me of years ago he scoffed at the notion of antidepressants having long term sideeffects long after discontinuation(even for those who slowly tapered off of them under doctors instructions) and possibly long term use worsening recovery over the long term, now has to give a little ground to these possibilities.

Click to expand...

Where did this discussion take place? What was said? Sounds more interesting than all this GMO mumbo jumbo to a laymen like myself.

There's a huge amount of hypocrisy on this issue among some. People will say that supplements should be banned until they are proven safe, but GMO should be allowed until it is proven unsafe. I guess I take a middle ground in that I think they should both be allowed but labeled.

Click to expand...

Few people question the safety of supplements (in sensible doses). Most just question their effectiveness.

"GMO" can apparently pretty much anything, depending on what point a person is trying to prove.

I hope heycal isn't sitting at home starving while we sort out the great "Grape Nuts vs. Cheerios" question.

Few people question the safety of supplements (in sensible doses). Most just question their effectiveness.

"GMO" can apparently pretty much anything, depending on what point a person is trying to prove.

I hope heycal isn't sitting at home starving while we sort out the great "Grape Nuts vs. Cheerios" question.

Click to expand...

Yes, let's get back to Heycal's growling belly. I'm going with Olli and voting Cheerios. They have a really weird smell that is quite offensive but what the heck. Cal could have 2 cups of Cheerios for the same kcal as 1/2 cup Grape Nuts. You get the health benefits Olli mentioned and a giant bowl vs a serving that could fit in a small coffee cup, plus similar protein and fiber with the same amount of calories. Grape Nuts always got stuck in my teeth, making brushing a chore with Grape Nut chunks getting clogged in my expensive SoniCare toothbrush. This also leads to the added expense of extra dental floss. Either way, you'll be starving by 9:30 am and running to the toilet anyway.

Yes, let's get back to Heycal's growling belly. I'm going with Olli and voting Cheerios. They have a really weird smell that is quite offensive but what the heck. Cal could have 4 cups of Cheerios for the same kcal as 1/2 cup Grape Nuts. You get the health benefits Olli mentioned and a giant bowl vs a serving that could fit in a small coffee cup, plus more protein and fiber with the same amount of calories.

Click to expand...

That's sort of my feeling as well. I inexplicably love Grape Nuts taste-wise (probably because of the Crack they secretly add to it), but TWO cups of cheerios does roughly equal 1/2 cup of Grape Nuts, so pyschologically one may be more easily satisfied with the Cheerios.

Though I must say, the Grape Nuts do seem to leave me satiated for much longer than the Cheerios do. One cup of Grape Nuts can let me go hours without being hungry again. Cheerios, less so.

Which do you think are better for you in terms of both weight control and general health, Grape Nuts (nuggets, not flakes)
Am I missing anything here in terms of weight control or general health? Any other factors worth considering?

Click to expand...

4 pages and no answer to your question . neither one is better than the other . cereal no matter what kind or if its "healthy" or not is sugar , milk is sugar .. eat both by themselves , you body secrets a hormone called insulin and you store fat , period end of story .. control insulin levels by having a good ratio of protein , carbs and fats at EACH meal .. better option for your breakfast would be 3 egg whites and 2 whole eggs ( 5 total) scrambled and you choice of cereal to go with it . this will control your blood sugar for a much longer period of time and you you feel great .. dont get caught up in calories , calories really dont have much to do with weight gain or weight loss

4 pages and no answer to your question . neither one is better than the other . cereal no matter what kind or if its "healthy" or not is sugar , milk is sugar .. eat both by themselves , you body secrets a hormone called insulin and you store fat , period end of story .. control insulin levels by having a good ratio of protein , carbs and fats at EACH meal .. better option for your breakfast would be 3 egg whites and 2 whole eggs ( 5 total) scrambled and you choice of cereal to go with it . this will control your blood sugar for a much longer period of time and you you feel great .. dont get caught up in calories , calories really dont have much to do with weight gain or weight loss

Click to expand...

What exactly do you mean by controlling your insulin? Keeping it consistently in a certain range?

And if you don't think calories have much to do with weight gain or loss, what do you think does? Carbs, or something else?

I know that personally, the way I've lost and maintained weight loss in the past was to eat less calories, period. For me, that meant 1 donut instead of 2, 2 Taco Bell tacos instead of 4, a bit less Coca Cola, and so on. I didn't really add anything good or remove anything bad -- I just ate less. (I would continue this plan today, but I'm trying to eat a bit healthier, just not only fight weight gain.)

Half of the people here likely never even read the OP and went off to what seems like a whole different thread. GRAPE NUTS vs. CHEERIOS is what the OP is asking about and (my guess) probably not looking for a doctoral dissertation. Just some simple answers and why.

I eat both. I know the carb load on cereals in general are substantial but keeping the sugar grams down compared to the total carb grams is what I try to do. For a pure health standpoint I have no idea which is better. Unless you're a top athlete I don't think it should matter vastly which of the two you choose. Do your "research" here and on the net then just go with what suits you.

For instance if you take Cap'n Crunch, Grape Nuts and Cheerios you don't even need to read the box to know which one not to eat. I actually mix Grape nuts with Cheerios to get some crunch and some texture to otherwise bland cheerios.

I actually mix Grape nuts with Cheerios to get some crunch and some texture to otherwise bland cheerios.

Click to expand...

So you're telling the OP to eat both..? OP seems intent on going with one or the other, if someone here can convince the OP why... Nobody can so far, so we're discussing GMOs. Yes, some form of corn is in everything these days!